[gothic-l] Re: Goths, Bavarians and Heruls

[dirk at SMRA.CO.UK]

>
> Exactly this event (Datius/Suartuas) has been discussed before
> between Andreas, you and me
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/message/3374
> - and I still prefer to read Procopius for Goffart.

Hi Troels,

saying that you prefer to read Procopius over Goffart seems like
common sense, but it is somewhat beside the point. To read Procopius
and to even begin to understand Procopius you have to read not only
all works of Procopius (as Averil Cameron has pointed out), but you
also have to know all the sources that Procopius has or may have used.
You would need to understand Procopius' intentions, his stand-point
vis-a-vis imperial policy towards barbarian people etc.. For example
some of his writing may have been influenced by a hatred of
Justinian's policies. While this is only an example, Procopius could
have hand-picked events that -although true- provide only a distorted
picture. Also, it is said that he was a 'bad' writer, meaning that
some of the events that he wanted to inform about may have suffered
from this deficiency. Also, the possible stand-point of his informers
is likely to have influenced his reports. In short, I believe it is
not a question of reading either Procopius or Goffart (who hasn't
actually written too much about Procopius), but all sources and
interpretations must be considered.









> ........
> > > Your explanation below about defeated dynasties in general is
> common
> > > sense to me, but it is not in accordance with the specific
> > > information we have about the Heruls.
> >
> >
> > But this 'common sense', or shall we call it theory, too often
> > receives too little attention when people try to re-construct
> history
> > on the basis of only a single or a couple of sources. Actual 'use'
> of
> > this common sense could have directed you much earlier to people
> like
> > Fara, who seemed to have conformed with the 'usual' pattern of
> > behaviour. In  general, it is this common sense (lets not call it
> > theory, as historians usually dispise theory) which gives the best
> > leads if sources are scarce.
> >
> > I think that if one contemporary source reports rather unlikely
> > events, people tend to believe that and adjust everything else
> around
> > it in order to 'fit it in' instead of questioning the reliability
> and
> > intentions of the authors of the sources.
> >
>
> I read about Fara a year ago at a website. If we construct the
> history based on our expectations according to common sense instead
> of using the sources we have - even when the result is unexpected -
I
> think we mix sources and testing tools.


Nobody said that we should ignore the sources and constructing
history on the basis of common sense/theory alone is of course
impossible. But if sources are as scarce as in the 6th century and
events are only reported by one author it is always good to ask why he
may have reported this and why he did not report what we might have
expected instead of blindly believing his every word.

cheers,

Dirk







------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/